The Sensitivity of Orthopaedic Surgeons to the Secondary Prevention of Fragility Fractures

Survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association

A survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association conducted in 2022 found considerable variation in care across the region. A Call to Action is proposed to improve acute care, rehabilitation and secondary fracture prevention across Asia Pacific.

PURPOSE

Fragility fractures impose a substantial burden on older people and their families, healthcare systems and national economies. The current incidence of hip and other fragility fractures across the Asia Pacific region is enormous and set to escalate rapidly in the coming decades. This publication describes findings of a survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association (APOA) conducted in 2022.

METHODS

The survey was developed as a collaboration between the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis and Fragility Fracture Society and the Asia Pacific Fragility Fracture Alliance, and included questions relating to aspects of care upon presentation, during surgery and mobilisation, secondary fracture prevention, and access to specific services.

RESULTS

In total, 521 APOA members completed the survey and marked variation in delivery of care was evident. Notable findings included: Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated that analgesia was routinely initiated in transit (by paramedics) or within 30 minutes of arrival in the Emergency Department. One-quarter of respondents stated that more than 80% of their patients underwent surgery within 48 hours of admission. One-third of respondents considered non-hip, non-vertebral fractures to merit assessment of future fracture risk. One-third of respondents reported the presence of an Orthogeriatric Service in their hospital, and less than a quarter reported the presence of a Fracture Liaison Service.

CONCLUSION

A Call to Action for all National Orthopaedic Associations affiliated with APOA is proposed to improve the care of fragility fracture patients across the region.

Does previous fragility fracture impact upon mortality in a hip fracture cohort? a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are described as fractures resulting from low-energy trauma and are considered diagnostic of reduced bone mineral density or osteoporosis. They often present as hip fractures with hip fractures remaining a common but devastating injury among older patients. Many factors influence a patient's risk of hip fracture and their subsequent risk of death.

AIM

In this study, we examined if previous fragility fracture impacts upon mortality after hip fracture.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients included in the Irish Hip Fracture registry over a 5-year time period. Epidemiological data including gender, age, type of fracture, type of surgery, bone protection medication, American Society of Anesthetics (ASA) grade, and post-fracture outcomes including death at 30 days and death at 1 year were recorded. The presence or absence of a previous fragility fracture was examined to explore if a previous fragility fracture was an independent predictor of mortality.

RESULTS

There were 964 patients included, and 290 of whom had sustained a previous fragility fracture; 289 patients were males and 675 females, 33 patients had died in the 30 days following their surgery, and 180 patients had died within 1 year. We found statistically significant results for gender and age but not for previous fragility fracture influencing mortality (p value 0.230).

CONCLUSION

We found that previous fragility fracture does not impact upon mortality in a hip fracture cohort. However, gender and age did impact upon mortality in this study.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Educational program for orthopedic surgeons' influences for osteoporosis

Background

In this retrospective study, we studied the impact of educational osteoporosis program on the rates of bone mineral density (BMD) assessment and bone turnover markers (BTM) and drug medications in the patients with hip fracture.

Methods

This retrospective research enrolled 651 patients aged ≥50 years who experienced hip fractures from January 2013 to December 2015. We recorded whether patients had received BMD assessment, BTM measurement, and anti-osteoporosis therapy during the period of hospitalization. Orthopedic surgeons were classified into the trained group and the untrained group. The rates of BMD assessment, BTM measurement, and anti-osteoporosis medications in the patients with hip fracture were compared between the trained group and the untrained group.

Results

BMD assessment was performed in 109/220 patients in the trained group and 142/431 patients in the untrained group. BTM measurements were performed in 130 patients in the trained group and 124 patients in the untrained group. Forty eight patients in the trained group and 63 patients in the untrained group received bisphosphonate medications.

Conclusions

Although the rates of BMD assessment, BTM measurement, and bisphosphonate use in the patients after hip fractures are still insufficient, education programs help to improve the situation.

Rates of Osteoporosis Management and Secondary Preventative Treatment After Primary Fragility Fractures

Fragility fractures are often sentinel events in documenting new cases of osteoporosis. Numerous analyses have demonstrated low rates of adequate osteoporosis evaluation and treatment following primary fragility fractures. The purpose of this study was to quantify the incidence of primary fragility fractures in America and the rates of osteoporosis screening and management before and after fracture.

Sister, Sister! Siblings With Simultaneous Early Femoral Insufficiency Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Early periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty are rare but devastating complications which require revision surgery and lead to poor patient satisfaction. We present 2 siblings who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty on the same day and then both presented 2 weeks after surgery with atraumatic periprosthetic femur fractures. The first patient underwent revision for a cemented distal femoral replacement with stemmed tibial fixation. The second patient underwent an isolated femoral component revision with a stemmed femoral component and distal augment. Histological evaluation identified significant peri-implant osteoporosis. The variation in complexity associated with early periprosthetic femoral insufficiency fractures is highlighted by these 2 cases. Surgeons may consider using stemmed femoral components in similar patients if poor distal femoral bone stock is encountered intraoperatively.

Comparison of morbidity and mortality of hip and vertebral fragility fractures: Which one has the highest burden?

Objectives

Hip fragility fractures were regarded as one of the most severe, but recent papers report on the underestimated burden of vertebral compression fractures. This study aims to compare morbidity and mortality of hip and vertebral fragility fractures in patients treated in the same setting.

Methods

Patients aged ≥50 years with hip fracture, and those with vertebral fracture presenting to our hospital between January 2014 and January 2017 were included. Patients were evaluated 1 year after their index fracture. SF-36 scores, mortality, and institutionalization are then recorded. Patients were divided into 2 groups: hip fractures and vertebral fractures.

Results

There were 106 and 90 patients respectively evaluated in hip and vertebral fracture groups at 1 year. Patients in both groups were comparable for age, sex, comorbidities and neuropsychiatric condition (P > 0.05). At 1 year follow-up, SF-36 showed better averages in all 8 scales in hip fracture group compared to vertebral fracture group. Mortality in the hip fracture group reached 32.1% compared to 10% for the vertebral fracture group (P < 0.01). Fifteen patients were institutionalized in the hip fracture group compared to 18 patients in the vertebral fracture group (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

When comparing patients treated in the same setting, hip fracture is associated with significantly increased mortality than vertebral fracture; however, the latter is associated with more morbidity.

Impact of pharmaceutical care in the orthopaedic department

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

In the mid-1960s, clinical pharmacy developed in the USA, and as the demand for pharmaceutical services continued to grow, their impact began to be taken seriously. However, the participation of clinical pharmacists as members of the multidisciplinary team in the orthopaedic department is still in its infancy, although its role in orthopaedics has not been defined. The object of this study was to identify and discuss the impact of pharmaceutical care in the orthopaedic department.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for papers published between 1998 and 2019, using the keywords pharmacy, pharmacist, and medication or drug combined with orthopaedic. Other available resources were also used to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the available evidence in 74 articles, it was found that clinical pharmacists play an important role in all aspects of rational use of medications, medication review and reconciliation, monitoring adverse drug events, risk assessment, and medication education and counselling. In addition, clinical pharmacy services were developed to minimize medication errors, adverse drug events and medical costs, but clinical pharmacy is still in its early stages in orthopaedics.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach should be adopted in the orthopaedic department, as pharmacist interventions can be vital for promoting the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. Although pharmacists' contributions to orthopaedics are not yet fully recognized, pharmaceutical services can undoubtedly contribute to both clinical and societal outcomes.